Date: Mar 28, 2013 4:05 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 233
On 3/28/2013 2:54 PM, fom wrote:> On 3/28/2013 2:46 PM, Gus Gassmann wrote:>> On 28/03/2013 3:38 PM, fom wrote:>>> On 3/28/2013 7:48 AM, WM wrote:>>>>>>>>> If the set of all rationals exists, then that limit exists already in>>>> that set. Combining paths with loss of nodes is not useful to increase>>>> the number of paths.>>>>>> But no one is talking about whether the sequence>>> of rationals converging to a rational is in the>>> set of rationals.>>>>>> The issue is a representation of apparent geometric>>> completeness within an arithmetical system.>>>> I don't think so. I think the issue is that Mueckenheim, whom someone>> decided to hire as a professor of mathematics at a third-rate>> institution, manages to obfuscate just enough the distinction between>> repeating and non-repeating decimals when he applies them to paths, and>> that he is too dense to comprehend that. Crayon marks, indeed.>>>> Well, that is the real-world issue. It is what motivates> Virgil to reply regularly to this nonsense.>> He has stated as much.>